Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Friday, 16 Apr 1982

Vol. 97 No. 6

White Paper on Northern Ireland: Motion.

Professor Murphy

I move:

That Seanad Éireann takes note of the British Government's White Paper: Northern Ireland — A Framework for Devolution.

I would be happier to begin my contribution if there was somebody representing the Government present. There are copies of the White Paper available which may be distributed at this point. I apologise for the fact that the Senators did not have an opportunity to consider fully the material in question. I hope that making it available at this point will at least provide some help.

The White Paper was published on 5 April, after a long gestation period, so that part of the contents of the paper was leaked well beforehand. The purpose of the leak I suppose was to prepare people for it and to get them accustomed to the contents. Strictly speaking, it is not the business of the Houses of the Oireachtas directly to discuss the text of the White Paper since it belongs to another jurisdiction. It is not my intention that there should be the same detailed perusal and analysis that we would give to a similar document which was to apply to the jurisdiction of this State.

The next best thing, so to speak, is that what may come about as a result of the White Paper will have a very direct bearing on the political security of the future not only of Northern Ireland but of the island as a whole. I do not think it is necessary for us to be acquainted with every detailed section of the White Paper. Most of us in the normal way will have absorbed the news and have been interested in it and will have taken in the general principles of it anyway.

I do not intend to be lengthy on this topic. I simply want to point out how important it is to suggest that the attitude of some of us is much more welcoming than would be inferred from the official Government response. Mr. Prior, the Northern Ireland Secretary of State, has had a herculean task in preparing this paper. A cartoon in The Irish Times of 13 April 1982 showed him trying to keep numerous heads in the air at the same time — various shades of Unionist opinion, the SDLP, southern or Dublin personalities, and of course his own Tory colleagues in Government and in the Parliament of Westminister.

My heart does not bleed for Mr. Prior or for the Mr. Priors of that kingdom because Britain carries the ultimate historical responsibility for the situation in Ireland. That is not to say that it is Britain which can now solve the problem in its entirety but the ultimate historical responsibility is there, and I do not weep for Mr. Prior's dilemma because it was his predecessors, it was English power in Ireland that generated the heat in the kitchen. He has to stay there and sweat it out until some solution is arrived at.

Though emphasing the historical responsibility of Britain, and therefore Britain's representative in Northern Ireland, at the same time I suggest that this has been a very difficult month for him and there is no need to stress that. For one thing, I suggest that his Prime Minister is a true blue Tory. In presenting the White Paper to the House of Commons he described himself as a Unionist by sentiment. If that is true of him, it is certainly much more true of the Prime Minister whom he serves. He has had to contend with Unionist sentiment in Government and in Parliament in London. Given the present jingoistic mood of Parliament in London it was unfortunate for Mr. Prior that his White Paper should be launched at a time when public opinion, or imperialist sentiment in Britain, has not been so strong since Suez in 1965. He has had to contend with Margaret Thatcher and with the high Tories in London. He has had to contend with various shades of Unionist opinion with the need to convince the minority that there was something in the White Paper for them and to convince the majority in Northern Ireland that he was not selling out to an Anglo-Irish governmental council. He also had to convince them that he was not selling out to the Dublin pressures for unity.

I have not put forward this motion in order to give an unqualified welcome to the White Paper, but I suggest that the onus is on the critics of the White Paper to suggest an alternative. Those who have dismissed the White Paper as unworkable, as not providing a proper framework, as lacking an Irish dimension, have a solemn duty to point out what their solution is. May I say that at this stage I regard the Government's response which was published on the following day, but obviously prepared long beforehand, as negative and dangerously irresponsible.

May I just make my own very brief resume of the White Paper? It sets out, first of all, that there is to be an election in Northern Ireland, and that in itself surely is a good thing. The fact that previous elections had no positive outcome should not deter us from trying again. There is no alternative to elections and assemblies in our democratic philosophy of life. The White Paper suggests that a Bill will be introduced in parliament providing for an elected assembly on proportional representation and the assembly will elect a speaker or chairman and the chairman will in turn appoint chairmen of committees, a very important feature of the plan, and that these committees will correspond to the various Departments of the Northern Ireland Government. The chairmen and deputy chairmen of these committees will be very important functionaries. They will be paid, they will have salaries and a status, so to speak. In the first instance their job will be scrutinising Westminister legislative proposals. I suggest that even at this stage it is a welcome feature that the vacuum which has been Northern Ireland since Sunningdale, one might say, will at least be filled by an elected representative assembly which will get down to looking at the content of proposed Westminister legislation.

The White Paper also proposes that these chairmen will liaise together in a semi-permanent way so that they could constitute the core of a future Executive. Beyond this point the paper goes into the realms of hope and aspiration rather than real practical proposals. The White Paper expresses the hope that that assembly will lead to a devolved Executive, a power-sharing Executive. That Executive cannot come about unless there is a strong majority in the assembly and cross-community agreement.

As far as we are concerned in the Republic and as far as we are concerned who profess to aspire to a united Ireland — I have my doubts about the depth of that aspiration — there are two very important features in the White Paper. They occupy between them a substantial two pages of the document. The first is that the White Paper recognises that there is an Irish identity in Northern Ireland, that there are people who want a united Ireland and who feel Irish and whose allegiance is Irish. The White Paper recognises that, and secondly it says that anyone who does not use violence is quite legitimate in aspiring to a united Ireland. It must be the first time that that Irish identity has been recognised. It is the first time that London has said firmly to the Northern Nationalists, "If you want a United Ireland that is a perfectly legitimate objective provided you do not use force".

It is a fundamental recognition really of the possibility at some stage of a united Ireland that the White Paper is prepared to say that the activities of the SDLP are not somehow suspect or criminal, they are perfectly legitimate and they are removed from the class of political suspects or political subversives. It has admittedly been asserted with a good deal of substance that the White Paper recognition of the Irish identity and the Irish aspiration is rather lame; and it is. We had hoped for more, I suppose. The attitude and expressed sentiments of Lord Gowrie, the Under-Secretary of State, had given us hope that there would be a more positive form of recognition of the Irishness of one third of the population of Northern Ireland. At least the two points I have mentioned are positive.

The response to the paper was predictably contradictory. In this state of affairs we have to distinguish between what parties feel they should say and what they really think. There were predictable ritualistic responses from certain shades of Unionist opinion. The SDLP, echoing the Dublin Government, has dismissed the proposals as unworkable. The Reverend Ian Paisley threatened to go in to wreck the attempt to have anything to do with an Anglo-Irish Parliamentary tier. So for the first day or two after the publication of the paper the response was not perhaps very encouraging.

We note as well, as Senator Robinson suggested earlier today, that the whole thing was shoved off the front pages. On the very day it was published in The Irish Times, for example, it occupied a place on the front page subordinate to the Gilbert and Sullivan shenanigans that were going on about the Falkland Islands. Nevertheless, within a couple of days, there was a more positive response and it was heartening and encouraging to find people like Mr. Paddy Devlin, who perhaps of all those in public life in Northern Ireland cannot be accused of being unrealistic and has his feet planted very firmly on the ground, pointing out that the great thing about the White Paper was that not alone was it a proposed substitute for the gun, that it proposed to set up an elected assembly — and that in itself is a good thing — but that from the viewpoint of the Northern Ireland economy it was far better to have people from Northern Ireland sitting down being directly concerned about the economy, because, even if they never got as far as the stage of devolved government, even if they only stayed for a while at the stage of scrutinising committees, the whole psychology of people's attitude to the economy and unemployment could not but be improved by the existence of such an assembly.

Therefore, whatever the defects of the White Paper or whatever future is in store for it, it deserved more than a negative and sterile and pre-emptive dismissal by the Government. The White Paper was no sooner published than it was dismissed forthwith by the Government. That, of course, stems from the Taoiseach's belief that Northern Ireland is a failed entity and therefore for him any proposal that has to do with Northern Ireland alone is unworkable. I suggest that that is irresponsible to the highest degree. The Government's short statement on the White Paper concluded with the assertion that the Government works towards a united Ireland by peaceful means. I think at this late stage of the day, to reiterate the cliché about working for a united Ireland by peaceful means is incredible, given the fact that that Government and the party from which it is drawn have no policy on Northern Ireland, have no Irish dimension. It ill behoves a Government to dismiss a proposal, no matter how defective it is, without making some suggestion other than reiterating a phrase about co-operation between London and Dublin to solve the problem of Northern Ireland.

I simply want to propose that we take note of the paper. I am not suggesting that the House should express an opinion one way or another. But my own opinion is that at least it is a proposal and that we should wish it well.

Mrs. Robinson

Before we continue, I do not see the Government representative. I understood that there was a Government representative available to listen to the debate and to participate in it. Could the Leader of the House explain?

Mr. E. Ryan

It is my understanding that there will be one.

Mrs. Robinson

Is there a Minister coming?

An Cathaoirleach

It is not a matter for the Chair. The Leader of the House said he understood there was a member of the Government coming. Is the motion being seconded?

Mr. Ferris

I second the motion.

Mrs. McGuinness

I have no doubt Senator Ross will want to speak but as he has withdrawn from the House perhaps I might put in a few remarks here. I do not intend to speak at great length, and indeed I am not allowed to do so by the rules of the House. But as someone who comes from Northern Ireland I feel it is absolutely incumbent upon me to speak on this motion. I do feel considerable concern about it. I do not wish to use this motion to comment on what the Government's response to the White Paper has been because that is not in fact the wording of the motion. It is simply that we should as a House take note of the motion. That is something that I feel the House should do.

In some ways the White Paper does accept and set out some of the realities of life in Northern Ireland which perhaps have not been accepted by the British Government up to now or have not been accepted in any very positive way. I would in particular here draw attention to paragraph 19 on page 5 of the White Paper where it is stated that, given the importance of these two identities, this is, the two traditions, the Nationalist and Unionist traditions, in Northern Ireland, the application of simple majority rule would, as in the past, leave the minority in perpetual and ineffectual opposition where they can become prey to those who seek change by violent means and that this cannot lead to the stable society in the establishment of which the majority have as much interest as the minority. While this is put in a certain way which might not always be pleasing to everybody, at the same time it is in some ways precisely the point that has been made on many occasions by Mr. John Hume, the leader of the SDLP Party, in pointing out that over the 50 years of Unionist rule in Northern Ireland, one of the major difficulties has been that one cannot have a stable Government in a stable society where there is a large minority of people in perpetual opposition and always denied a voice in government. The fact that this has been accepted as being an unstable situation is at least a step forward.

I do question — and this is possibly one of the reasons that the Government response to the Paper has been as it is — the set up of the two identities as being perpetually and forever divided. This comes very close to a two-nation theory which I find extremely difficult to accept because I assume that that would mean that I would belong to the other nation myself and I find that personally impossible to believe. As I find it quite possible to be a Northern Protestant and also an Irishwoman I cannot see that one can say that this division between the two identities, as it were, should go on for ever. However, even accepting that I do not agree with that aspect of the paper, it is some kind of a step forward to accept that one cannot have stable government continuing on this perpetual majority position.

The paper starts off with the rather questionable assertion in paragraph 6 that direct rule has served Northern Ireland well and has won a measure of acceptance from all parts of the community and is recognised to be impartial. I would think that there are large numbers of members of the community in both traditions who would not necessarily accept that. Nevertheless, Mr. Prior is making a genuine effort to try to offer some kind of political solution to the Northern Ireland problem.

The basic difficulty over the past few years under direct rule has been that there is no outlet whatsoever for the political parties, either for the people who wish to maintain the connection with Britain or the people who wish to progress towards a united Ireland by peaceful means. This I submit, despite the first reaction of the SDLP to the paper, has been one of their big difficulties in recent years. The SDLP are a party putting forward very reasonable and in many ways extremely desirable aims within the Northern Ireland situation, but they have no place to elect their representatives to. This to a large extent applies also to the more moderate Unionists and people who would refuse to take part in violent actions. In fact, the middle ground has nowhere to go under direct rule. Both sides have considerable and basic objections to many aspects of direct rule.

While we may have very grave doubts about the workability of quite a number of the White Paper's procedures, and these are doubts which may be pretty well-founded, at the same time we need to take note that some sort of positive response is being made to the political vacuum in Northern Ireland and that some sort of opportunity is being offered to the supporters of non violence and those who wish to make changes. They should be given some political outlet. It is also important to note as Senator Murphy said, that it is accepted in the White Paper that there are people who wish to make fundamental changes in the status of Northern Ireland. They should be given a voice. Hitherto there has been an acceptance that these people should never be given a voice. Note should be taken of the fact that it is accepted that those who are seeking fundamental change should be allowed a political voice.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment (Mr. Brady,

Dublin South-East): I should like to apologise for the fact that the Minister cannot be here to participate in this debate on account of the hour at which the debate is taking place. We did not consider that a political debate here on the subject of the British Government's White Paper on devolved government for Northern Ireland would be useful. However, other views prevailed and the Seanad has seen fit to devote some of its remaining time to consideration of these proposals. Perhaps Senators have found this a profitable exercise and it has certainly afforded an opportunity to those who have spoken to attack the Taoiseach and the Government on their policy on the national issue of Northern Ireland. The Government consider the devolution proposals to be unworkable and nothing that has been said today will change our opinion on that point.

Mrs. McGuinness

On a point of information, the Minister of State has referred to those who spoke attacking the Taoiseach. In no sense did I attack the Taoiseach. I specifically said I did not.

Professor Murphy

Are we supposed to take this seriously? The Minister comes in and speaks about a debate he has not heard.

Mrs. Robinson

From a script.

Mr. Brady

(Dublin South-East): I apologised for the absence of the Minister and that should be taken by Senators in a courteous manner. With respect, I imagine that it is normal that Senators at least accept the apology of the Minister for not being present, take it in a courteous manner and allow me to proceed with my statement.

(Interruptions.)

An Cathaoirleach

The Minister will now continue his contribution without interruption.

Mr. Brady

(Dublin South-East): The Government consider the devolution proposals to be unworkable and nothing that has been said will change the opinion of the Government on that point. In consultations with Mr. Prior in London on 31 March which took place at his suggestion, the Minister for Foreign Affairs had the opportunity of discussing the proposals in the White Paper in very considerable detail. Our views that they would not work in terms of the political realities of Northern Ireland were not lightly arrived at or based on incomplete knowledge. The Government have explained why they consider the proposals in the White Paper to be both unworkable and mistaken in their neglect of the broader dimensions of the problem. We did this in a joint statement with the SDLP on 22 March. The Minister then personally explained our position and our positive alternative policies to Mr. Prior on 31 March. On 5 April the Government confirmed their position in another statement.

That the proposals for devolution are unworkable had been emphasised by the unfavourable reaction of the Northern Ireland political parties. The three largest parties — the SDLP, the Official Unionist and the Democratic Unionist Parties — have expressed their opposition to the proposals.

But, more important, the White Paper makes the fundamental mistake of focusing solely on the elaboration of devolved government for Northern Ireland alone, thus ignoring the broader dimensions of the situation. It is the Government's view that only policies designed to promote peace, stability and reconciliation between the two major Irish traditions and to develop the totality of relations within these islands can contribute to a true solution of Northern Ireland's difficulties. Such policies should be brought forward through the operation of the Anglo-Irish——

Professor Murphy

We all read that.

An Cathaoirleach

The Minister must be allowed to make his contribution.

Mr. Brady

(Dublin South-East): The Senator has already spoken. Does he wish to speak again? I should like if I might be allowed to continue without further interruption, Senator, please. Such policies should be brought forward through the operation of the Anglo-Irish inter-governmental council and in particular through the role of an Anglo-Irish parliamentary institution in which Northern Ireland representatives participate.

Some reference has been made to the desirability of elections in Northern Ireland and the advantage of setting up an assembly there with a scrutinising function over the Northern Ireland civil service. I am, of course, all in favour of democratic scrutiny of civil servants but those who see merit in elections to a purely Northern Ireland assembly need to consider the position of the political parties who would be contesting them. Before they can take part in elections the political parties — in Northern Ireland, as in any other part of the world — have to be able to put forward a defensible policy platform to their supporters. This is a big problem for parties competing for the support of the nationalist minority in Northern Ireland, particularly the SDLP. They would be asking their traditional voters to support SDLP participation in a forum in which there would be no guaranteed sharing of power and no meaningful wider Irish dimension. That is asking the SDLP to take a dangerous risk of losing their base in the electorate.

The Taoiseach has stated, and the Government have demonstrated since they took office that their first political priority will continue to be the quest for a solution to the tragic problems in Northern Ireland. The fundamental objective remains the achievement of a united Ireland by peaceful means. We have put forward a clearly defined policy in pursuit of this aim both at home and abroad; it is a policy based on what was initiated when this Government were previously in office — the Anglo-Irish dialogue was inaugurated at the meeting between the Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister in Dublin Castle in December 1980. That is the way forward and we shall neglect no opportunity to make progress along it. We have raised the relationship between the two Governments to a new plane and we shall use this framework to discuss the problem in its true and wider dimension. I thank the House.

Professor Dooge

It is fitting that this Seanad should end in discussing the question of Northern Ireland, having begun its life discussing the question of Northern Ireland. This motion asks us to take note of the White Paper Northern Ireland—A Framework for Devolution. That is what is presented in the White Paper, a framework for devolution.

Mrs. Robinson

Is the Minister leaving?

Professor Dooge

In effect, the first point about which we should be clear, because it emerged from what the Minister of State said, is that we should, first of all, tackle the question: is there a need for devolution in Northern Ireland? The second point is the question whether we wish to comment on the form of devolution proposed in the White Paper which is the subject of the motion.

Paragraph 1 of the White Paper which we are discussing expresses the view of the British Government:

that there is an urgent need for the people of Northern Ireland to have a new opportunity to resume greater power and responsibility in running their own affairs.

In other words, it says that there is an urgent need for devolution. The responses to this from Northern Ireland have come from all directions. We have had one this evening from the Minister, apparently repeating the view that there is no need for devolution in Northern Ireland, that everything can be solved on a Dublin-London axis. I do not want to be accused of saying the opposite, that the Dublin-London axis is not important. It is terribly important, but the people in Northern Ireland should also take part in the groping forward towards a solution, because that is what the process will be. I agree with what Senator McGuinness said earlier, that a bad thing for Northern Ireland is the political vacuum there. It is bad not only from the point of view of even taking steps towards a political solution; it is bad for the community of Northern Ireland themselves that they have no outlet for political expression. It appears that Fianna Fáil are taking the attitude that there is no need for devolution, that the problem can be solved without devolution. On the other hand, some of the extreme Unionists say that what is wanted is devolution and plenty of it. Some of them would like everything to be devolved to the local authorities, who have not even yet managed to shed their old practices of discrimination.

To me neither of these approaches is acceptable and neither is for the good of Northern Ireland. We want a type of devolution in Northern Ireland that will promote reconciliation between the two communities there. Accordingly, the key question is the form of devolution. The Minister has repeated that this scheme here is unworkable. Again an unnecessarily extreme position is being taken. These proposals, like any proposals in Northern Ireland, will be hard to work. No one should under estimate the difficulty of the job. This White Paper does not itself under-estimate the difficulty of achieving agreement, the whole tone of the White Paper is that it attempts to create an opportunity.

Of course, nobody was satisfied with the White Paper and the Minister here this evening suggested that something must be wrong with the White Paper when so many groups had some criticism to make. The Irish Times took up this point in its leading article on Tuesday, 6 April which stated: “The Archangel Gabriel could not write a proposal for the solution of the Northern problem that would meet with general approval”. No party in Northern Ireland is satisfied with these proposals. No party in this House is entirely satisfied with these proposals. This is to be expected because a proposal for Northern Ireland which found complete favour with one group in Northern Ireland would be bound to incur serious or probably irreparable opposition from some other group. A fair compromise, a fair proposal for movement forward will certainly not give satisfaction to all groups and probably will not give complete satisfaction to anyone. That is only to be expected, but the converse is not necessarily true. A proposal not giving satisfaction to any of the groups is not necessarily ipso facto a fair compromise, a good proposal. Therefore, Mr. Prior is not, of necessity, right just because many people disagree with him and he is attacked from all sides, but neither is he necessarily wrong.

Let us look at the proposals themselves and then make up our minds. We must examine the claim made in paragraph 4. I quote:

The Government's proposals do not require any group in Northern Ireland to compromise its deeply held beliefs. They provide an opportunity for both sides to create a workable form of government....

Senator Murphy has outlined the proposals as given in paragraph 30, that there should be an elected assembly and has suggested that this is a good thing. I agree with him on this. He has described the recommendations for phase 1 under which the assembly will have a scrutinising, deliberative and consultative role. It will be a good thing if an assembly can be formed in Northern Ireland who will do these things. That assembly will be a popularly elected assembly from Northern Ireland capable of making recommendations on the powers which were transferred in the 1973 Act and the Northern Ireland Government will endorse these recommendations if certain criteria are satisfied. The assembly can act on their own initiative on these transferred matters. They can be asked by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to consider and report on any other matters. They can suggest any amendment to draft orders in council, a function very like a function of this House, very like the powers of the Seanad to recommend amendments to the Dáil because, as we in this House know, the will of the Dáil prevails ultimately.

We have the suggestion for a committee system, a committee for each Department. These committees are something more than the assembly sitting in committee, but not as much as a committee with full formal power to send for persons and papers. These limits have been avoided and the via media has been taken.

It is fair to say that a criticism of the framework proposed is that power sharing is not explicit in it. It is remarkable that in all the opinion polls taken over many years in Northern Ireland, there is a strong support in both communities for power sharing. The hope of the Secretary of State would be that power sharing is implicit in the arrangement, that the bargaining which he sees as implicit in the formation of the committees and in the consultations which would lead to the appointment of the chairman and deputy chairman of these committees, would lead to the emergence of power sharing. This is an interesting approach and is not one which should be condemned out of hand.

With regard to the question of the rolling devolution of the second phase, this may be much more difficult. If there is success on the first phase of the setting up of the committees, it may be that in making that first phase work sufficient will have been learned in order to be able to tackle the more difficult second phase. We are dealing with people whose motto used to be "not an inch". If we can get to the position of an inch at a time, at least we will be moving.

It is important to look at paragraphs 14 to 21 of the White Paper. Nobody can really note this White Paper in the full sense of the word without realising what it says here. There is in paragraph 16 the definition of the Irish identity and in paragraph 17 the recognition that the:

difference in identity and aspiration lies at the heart of the ‘problem' of Northern Ireland.

It goes on to say:

it cannot be ignored or wished away.

This difference is solid stone and we cannot get away by pouring a few drops of water on it. Senator McGuinness has alteady said that paragraph 19 of the White Paper rejects majority rule in clear and specific terms. This must be welcome.

I would prefer to see in this White Paper a greater recognition of the functions of the Anglo-Irish Inter-Governmental Council, in particular of the parliamentary tier. The British Government seem very concerned that nothing can be done in this direction until the parliaments themselves move, that it is for parliaments to decide. The British, not having a written constitution like we do, seem far more constitution-bound when it comes to dealing with certain matters. There could be progress here. It is for parliaments to decide on such matters and also for governments to propose. I hope to see a rapid emergence of a more positive rôle here for the inter-parliamentary tier of the Anglo-Irish Inter-Governmental Council and of that operation as a whole. There are matters such as the question of identity, matters of civil rights, matters of security that have an all-Irish dimension and an impingement on Britain. There are things in this White Paper on which we would like to have more information. It is not one of our White Papers and we cannot have Mr. Prior here in order to question him about it. I would like to know a good deal more about the rôle and manner of election of the presiding officer, who apparently is to be appointed by a single majority vote and will have, after consultation with the parties, the power of nominating the chairmen, and deputy chairmen of committees, although he is of course constrained to do this in a proportional way. There are many matters on which we could look for more information. Nevertheless, there is a framework here that may creak as it starts to work but we have proposals that do not run in direct conflict with the basic principles of any of the communities. There is here a document not fully worked out in places as one might wish but one which does give an opportunity for the parties in Northern Ireland to work together. They can and should use this framework. There is no guarantee of success but success will never come unless the attempt is made.

Dr. Whitaker

Unless we favour an indefinite continuation of direct rule or unless we favour integration of Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom or unless we would consider an independent Northern Ireland desirable or unless we think we can realistically achieve — and it must be with the agreement of a majority in Northern Ireland — early integration of Northern Ireland with ourselves, then it seems we have no option but to welcome an initiative of an interim or compromise character, involving a sensitive degree of devolution to the people of Northern Ireland, which one would hope would provide a means for them to work together in a spirit of co-operation and compromise.

I do not understand the exaggerated condemnation of the proposals as being unworkable and unsuitable to the present conditions in Ireland which have been expressed on behalf of the Government. These proposals represent a considerable advance on any we have seen before, certainly on the Atkins proposals. I need only mention a few areas in which that advance is singificant. One of these is that there is explicit recognition in this paper of the legitimacy of the aspiration of what is at present a minority in Northern Ireland to be part of a united Ireland — a recognition also of the legitimacy of their pursuing the aim of a change of status and allegiance, democratically and peacefully. I do not know why we are not generous enough to see that that is a substantial recognition of an Irish dimension.

The present proposals also carry within themselves a potential for evolution. How that evolution will take place is vague, as Senator Dooge has said, but the principles are well established, in particular the principle of no longer relying on a bare majority but of seeking a wide cross-community agreement for political arrangements.

The proposals also, to my mind, have the tremendous merit of providing an effective role for elected politicians in Northern Ireland. They have been deprived of a forum and of any effective role for quite a number of years now and it must be a ground for admiration on our part that so many of them, whether we agree with their views or not, have stayed in the political field and, now that an election is to take place, will have a chance of re-establishing their representative character in the community.

Senator Murphy, when opening the debate, said that the onus was on the critics of the British White Paper to suggest an alternative. That gives me a very good lead, because in fact I went to the trouble of trying to provide an alternative in an article I published in July last. If it is not too immodest I would like to check off the new British proposals against what I thought at that time should be the main elements in any compromise or interim arrangement.

I said then that the Atkins proposals, and I said this by way of criticism, were set exclusively in a United Kingdom context whereas no proposals were likely to succeed which did not leave room for duly elected politicians in Northern Ireland to try by way of peaceful persuasion to influence a majority towards confirming or changing their political allegiance, that is, towards staying in or leaving the United Kingdom. I am glad to say that that first element in my ideal compromise solution is met by the present proposals.

I went on to say that another essential ingredient was the entrenchment of proportional representation as the system of election, a matter on which, curiously, the Atkins proposals were silent. Proportional representation may not be entrenched in the new White Paper but at least it is set down as the basis for the election to the assembly. In fact, as I said here before, I am not particularly keen otherwise than as a purely interim measure on power sharing as it has been understood up to now. I do not see it as a good permanent substitute for some form of majority rule. I would prefer the form of qualified majority rule, 60 or 70 per cent majority rule, which is indicated in this paper.

A third ingredient which I specified in this article, which by the way was published in the Round Table journal in July 1981, was a built-in potential for evolution under appropriate safeguards. There is obviously a potential for evolution here in the Prior proposals, an evolution which will depend on a process of negotiation which must secure sufficient across the Community agreement to progress towards having an executive and having powers devolved from the British Parliament.

The fourth essential ingredient of any compromise which I suggested was that, whatever be the constitution of Northern Ireland under new arrangements, it should contain provisions safeguarding the rights of the individual and allowing cases of alleged infringement of human rights to be appealed from the courts of Northern Ireland to the European Court of Human Rights. Possibly the Prior proposals are as yet at too early a stage of evolution to make that particular ingredient relevant. It certainly would become relevant if and when there were any question of the devolution of powers regarding security from Westminister to Northern Ireland.

In the article, and I think it is still relevant, I made the point that if, through all concerned being more reasonable and flexible, an intermediate arrangement can be made that brings peace to Northern Ireland and enables the whole community there to advance in justice and well-being, this would be an enormous gain and to obstruct it would be indefensible. That is why I dislike the overintense reaction of a negative kind which we have had. It is not that I am worried because the political parties in Northern Ireland have all seen more of the defects and the alleged unworkability of the proposals than their merits. Paradoxically, I think that is an advantage that will help to get the proposals properly discussed and off the ground. I cannot see that any of the political parties in Northern Ireland can afford to neglect the opportunity to be represented in the proposed assembly. I am very much in favour of a constructive response. The proposals may indeed be found unworkable but they are not unworkable in principle and cannot be so described ab initio. Their practicality remains to be seen and one hopes that every effort will be made to make them work rather than just condemn them without trial.

When I was in Tokyo last week I heard a very good phrase which I can apply to this problem. It was that pessimism of intellect ought to be offset by optimism of will. It is only if we are sufficiently sensitive and tolerant and allow time for these qualities to grow in a more reasonable and representative environment in Northern Ireland that there is hope of achieving the aim of those of us who want to have a united Ireland.

I have to end by saying that, because of the terms of the intervention by the Minister in the debate, I am puzzled by present Government policy. I do not think it has been clearly set out, as he claimed. As I understand the position of Mr. de Valera, Mr. Lemass and Mr. Lynch, it is that they recognised that, while the ideal form of reunification was, of course, in a unitary republic, a federal solution involving a substantial measure of local autonomy in Northern Ireland would be a quite tolerable alternative. The present Taoiseach, in a communique following a meeting with the British Prime Minister in May 1980, expressly recognised the need for the consent of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland to any change in the constitutional status of Northern Ireland. On the other hand, he keeps on repeating that Northern Ireland is not a viable political entity.

An Cathoirleach

Tá an t-am istigh duit.

Dr. Whitaker

This, with other aspects of his policy, seems to suggest that he is an integrationist at heart and that the degree of consent required from the majority in Northern Ireland is questionable.

Mr. Ferris

As Senator Dooge said, it is appropriate that the House, in its final moments, finish on such an important note as the situation in Northern Ireland. It is appropriate that, as a responsible part of the Oireachtas, we should be allowed to take note at least of the fact that this White Paper has been published. While I would not like to take from the Government the right to make any response they wish to the publication of this document, I resent slightly the attitude of the Minister of State — I accept his apology for being late — who arrived, read a prepared statement presuming certain things had been said, which to my knowledge had not been said, and reprimanding the House for passing any comment whatsoever on this matter. It is disquieting that the House is so treated and that the Minister then left the House. It is not for me to comment on why he is or is not here, but he should show the House the courtesy of listening to what we had to say. Very few of the contributors to this important debate have delved into the actual nitty gritty of the proposals. It is important that we register the fact that we welcome any step forward in this situation.

The publication of the document itself is a step forward. The Irish and British Governments realise that because of the political vacuum in Northern Ireland it is imperative that some steps forward be taken. My party consider it to be very important that contacts of any description — particularly contacts leading to a forum where discussions and dialogues between elected representatives in the North which might eventually lead to a peaceful settlement can take place — are a step forward. Such a step, however vague or unsatisfactory it might be in the inital stages is a step forward to a continuation of a formal dialogue.

As Senator Whitaker said, the system of election advocated in the White Paper, proportional representation, could and should lead to the representation of minority groups in Northern Ireland. Most of our loyalties on this side of the Border would lie with the minority groupings there. It is important too that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Mr. Prior, having published this White Paper, be ready and willing to consider any further changes in his suggested solution in the interests of all public representatives in the North who have chosen the political path of the ballot box rather than of those who advocate the use of violence, through the bomb and the bullet, and to ensure that an acceptable and effective assembly framework would be forthcoming.

As regards the comments of the Minister of State in which he said that people in the minority would find it difficult to contest an election, as Senator Dooge said, part 1, section 4 of the introduction to the White Paper says it does not require any of these groups to compromise any deeply held beliefs. That is a step forward, because there are deeply held beliefs on all sides — the minority and the Unionist sides. It is a welcome feature that all the political groups in the North, minority and majority, have reservations about this. This may be the basis for agreement: it is a framework in which they can work and if they do not have to compromise their beliefs, it does not preclude any future evolution from this assembly.

As is said in section 3 of the introduction, political stability and economic recovery and the defeat of terrorism go hand in hand. If that is accepted, and it must be accepted by all democrats, then this must be treated by us as a step forward.

The British Government also said in section 5 that politicians in the North have an inescapable responsibility to work out some acceptable scheme for themselves. That is not the whole step forward, but is an interim step, and may, with a spirit of co-operation on all sides, lead to an eventual settlement of this cancer that is taking the life blood of the northern part of our country where politicians of all shades of opinion find themselves in a political vacuum.

The public have very little to resort to except the violent situation which to us, as democrats, is totally unacceptable. The Government and the SDLP have differed in their response to this White Paper, but accepting that opinions may differ on certain aspects, I urge the Secretary of State to pursue the course he has taken with the agreement of all elected representatives in the North of Ireland.

People have different opinions on some of the more fundamental aspects of the North of Ireland, its economic situation, its people and their sufferings. I am sure the Government here would cooperate in every way with any elected assembly representative of all the views, that we would work with them on tourism, energy, and so on, to prove to them that we have no intention of arriving at a settlement which would not take into account the majority views which have been expressed there. No matter what is said about reaching a settlement in discussions between Dublin and London, it is an inescapable fact that, without the consent of the people of Northern Ireland, we can never have a settlement. Any assembly which brings together all the views must be welcomed.

In taking note of the publication of the White Paper Senators are urging the Government to look seriously at it, not to be negative about it, but to see if there are any areas within this White Paper on which agreement could be reached between elected representatives. We can only do good if we approach it in that manner. It is no use whatsoever to the depressed people in the North of Ireland if we take a negative attitude on a proposal which initially does not take into account our own ideal of a totally united Ireland.

Mrs. Robinson

The purpose in moving this motion to note the White Paper has been well served by the debate here this evening. The time was not the most opportune, but when I rose earlier this afternoon to support Senator Murphy I felt we should avail of opportunities as they arise to have debates on Northern Ireland. One of the interesting things in our own parliamentary record over the last few years is that we very rarely discussed Northern Ireland. We very rarely discussed serious proposals to provide some movement in the political situation in Northern Ireland. The purpose of this motion has been well served this evening in that it has given an opportunity to individual Senators to voice their views.

It has also revealed a defensive unwillingness on the part of the Government Senators to express any view other than the brief statement read by the Minister who then immediately left the House. That is worth noting and worth drawing attention to. I do not believe it is because of the inconvenience of the hour on a Friday evening. It is not because this item was put on the agenda by a vote against the proposal by the Leader of the House. It is deeper than that. It stems from a non-intellectual attitude towards Northern Ireland. I was very interested in a phrase Senator Whitaker used. He said: "Let us not have a pessimism of intellect in our attitude," when he criticised the statement issued by the Government that the proposals in the White Paper were unworkable in principle. That statement was repeated here this evening by the Minister of State who also added that nothing said in the Seanad would persuade or convince the Government otherwise. They found it unworkable in principle, full stop. That is not a pessimism of intellect. It is a pessimism of emotional response. The Government do not want these proposals to work. They do not want any devolved government in Northern Ireland in this kind of context to be workable.

In referring to Northern Ireland the Taoiseach has stated quite clearly that he believes it is politically dead, that it is not an entity which can have a devolved workable structure. Using the term "unworkable" in that context, and not arguing any further, "unworkable" full stop, gives rise to a potentially very dangerous reaction in Northern Ireland. It is a kind of code message to people in Northern Ireland to make it unworkable, to continue to make any democratic evolution of a political system in Northern Ireland unworkable. This coded message gets across. I have grave concern about the rise in the level of violence in Northern Ireland as a result of this kind of coded message going out. I do not believe it is deliberate in the sense of being an open and express message.

Indeed, the Taoiseach has stated clearly that he favours a peaceful solution to the Northern Ireland problem. Nevertheless, when we have a volatile political situation and as much evidence of violence and use of terrorist tactics for political ends as we have in Northern Ireland, to describe the overall framework of Northern Ireland and any institutional system to be based on it as being politically dead and unworkable in principle, is to say the least of it giving comfort and encouragement by obvious necessary logical consequence to those who are engaged in ensuring that it is not workable.

Our purpose in this House this evening in response to the White Paper is not to look at it in detail and approve or disapprove of phrases or sentences. It is to respond generally to the proposal contained in the White Paper that there should be a further attempt to create a political structure in Northern Ireland by means of an elected assembly which would determine by a process of rolling devolution, or evolutionary development, what powers it would have and how those powers would be shared and exercised. Like other Senators who have spoken, I should like to see a more developed Irish dimension, a more developed structure, which recognised in more explicit terms the Anglo-Irish Council and the importance of not just recognising that there might possibly be a parliamentary tier, but actively seeking to encourage and support a parliamentary tier to the Anglo-Irish Council. It is regrettable that the White Paper does not take a very explicit stand and give some leadership in this direction. Like Senator Whitaker, I should like to express my admiration for those politicians of the different parties in Northern Ireland who, without any local assembly or body to be elected to, without salaries and the other attributes of being an elected representative, have continued to exercise the role of democratic leaders in a Northern Ireland context and to seek to further the objective of the people in that part of this island.

We must not allow the debate on this motion to become too abstract and academic and relate only to institutions. Time is running out in Northern Ireland. There is an overall figure of 19 per cent unemployed. In some places it is as high as 35 and 40 per cent unemployed. In the area of young employed it is drastically high. It is an appalling situation. We have not got the luxury or the comfort of time. We have a rapidly deteriorating situation where the whole economic and social fabric is crumbling. That will not be transformed overnight by an elected assembly and the beginning of a devolution back of power to elected representatives in Northern Ireland. It is difficult to see how there can be much progress in economic and social development unless there is political movement.

I share the view expressed that it is not representative of all people in this country and I believe it is not necessarily representative even of the majority of people in this part of the country that the proposals in this White Paper are unworkable in principle and must receive no support or no detailed consideration in this part of the country. I hope that there will be at least one contribution from a Senator on the Government side because we need to know, we need to have explained to us, why the largest political party in this part of the country find proposals of this nature — which are flexible, adaptable, which have a great deal of problems inherent in them but which could be made to provide a workable solution of an institutional sort, certainly of an evolving sort, in a Northern Ireland context and which could be used as a basis for the kind of power to be exercised by Northern Ireland representatives to help them to face and to cope with these severe and economic problems — so unworkable in principle.

The only qualification that the Minister of State made was that this White Paper did not provide for the totality of relationships. That is another of these marvellous phrases. The onus is on the Minister of State and on the Taoiseach to explain what they would see as a proposal which would encompass the totality of relationships. What we get, when that question is put is that if we just all got around a table and discussed the matter we could come to some agreement. It is time that we had more intellectual analyses, argument and debate on the Northern Ireland context. This is the last time this Seanad will have an opportunity to debate any matter. I am glad, like other Senators, that we have ended on an issue so important and central to our own lives and to the future of families and communities in Northern Ireland. I hope that, at an early stage in the next Seanad, an opportunity will be afforded and that in the Dáil an opportunity will be afforded for debates and that these will happen very regularly from now on. I believe that we need to discuss, on the record, much more what are our attitudes and views and to clarify our thoughts by so doing. Therefore, I welcome the fact that this motion has been tabled. It has been helpful to have had an opportunity, even at this late stage, to express views on the United Kingdom White Paper.

Professor Murphy

I thank the Senators who have contributed and I share their view that this is a very suitable note on which to end this Seanad. Indeed, I consider it a privilege to have been allowed to move and respond to this motion. I can only describe the deafening silence from the Fianna Fáil benches as astonishing. It is not simply, as Senator Robinson said, that this is mysterious in view of the fact that they are the largest party in the State but that they are the party whose deepest concern is the unity of Ireland and whose deepest concern, indeed, is the Northern Ireland conflict — they were founded for this purpose, successive leaders have reiterated this — yet in a debate which offers them an opportunity, every single one of them, to voice his or her opinions on Northern Ireland all we get is total silence. If we remember that only last month, on the motion here hoping that the present Government would continue the constitutional review, there was one sole voice making one response from the other side of the House. All that is very eloquent indeed. It must surely cast doubts on the sincerity of the policy of the Fianna Fáil Party when they claim that their dearest wish is to see a resolution of the conflict and, as in the Government statement, a reconciliation of the two traditions. If they are not even interested in discussing it how can we take them seriously?

However, I thank the Senators who have spoken. I share Senator McGuinness's reservations about a two-nation concept. There is at present an Irish identity and a British identity in Northern Ireland. It is my fervent hope that this is not a permanent fixture, a permanent determination of things. I think we should so arrange our aspirations as to make it possible one day for an alternative and common identity to emerge.

I am glad Senator Dooge pointed out very unambiguously some of the important features of the White Paper. For example, paragraph 19 states quite unequivocally that there will not be another Stormont. I think that in itself is a very welcome feature of the White Paper. It is one that has not been stressed. The British Government are saying that they recognise that majority rule from 1921 to 1972 was a mistake, or at least that it cannot be allowed to happen again. No matter what bluster comes from the Paisleys and McCuskers and the others about a restoration of Stormont, there will not be another Stormont. I am glad Senator Dooge pointed that out.

I was glad that Senator Whitaker referred to his Round Table article. I am only too willing indeed to concede his prescience in this matter. I am also glad that he is puzzled by the Government's response. Indeed, he is driven to the conclusion, which I must share, that the Taoiseach is an integrationist, that that is his only policy on Northern Ireland and that he scorns all other approaches. And if he is an integrationist, how then can that be reconciled with his professed preference for peaceful means? If he is an integrationist does not that put him in very doubtful company? I am very slow and very loath to accuse Fianna Fáil of being fellow travellers of the Provisional IRA. In the history of this State they have indeed at great cost and pain to themselves dissociated themselves from subversion and have suppressed subversion. But there are certain attitudes inherent in the Taoiseach's policy, or lack of policy towards Northern Ireland that must raise grave doubts in the minds of certain members of the Fianna Fáil Party themselves.

I must share Senator Ferris's reaction to the strange appearance and disappearance of the Minister of State, the fact that he came in and assumed certain things had been said; that his main contribution was simply to re-read the statement issued by the Government on 5 April. I am sorry if I was unruly at that point but I could not resist the temptation. It seems to me that for him to come and go like that, and say in effect nothing — except to re-hash the nothing that was said — is a studied insult to this House. That does not really matter. However, what does matter is his confident assertion that the SDLP will continue to regard the White Paper as unworkable and will, it is to be inferred from what he said, ignore the elections and the assembly. I hope the SDLP will think again. All of us share the admiration which Senator Whitaker and Senator Robinson expressed for politicians who have borne the burden of the day for many long years now and who have kept the drooping flag of constitutional politics aloft in some way. Nevertheless, it is because we respect the SDLP as the most faithful and courageous voice of the Northern minority that we must say to them: beware of your over-close alliance with the present Government in Dublin; beware of your close alliance with the dominant faction in the Fianna Fáil Party in Dublin; beware of becoming prisoners of that faction, because that faction itself is the prisoner of a decaying Hiberniansim which has nothing to offer to our problems in Ireland.

I would love to see a greater Irish dimension. I do not think there is anyone in this House who would not like to see a more intense Irish dimension. But we must see at the same time, the dilemma of those who drew up the White Paper. An excessive concern with an Irish dimension was partly responsible for the collapse of the power-sharing executive in 1974. It seems to me that you can either press forward blindly and say that we want nothing but a United Ireland and that we will not have any solution which is not arranged by London and Dublin — perhaps even Washington also. You can take that negative, sterile, bland line which the Government are taking or you can say — and I hope this is the more sensible voice here — that at the moment what we need is a slow, workable solution page by page, day-by-day in Northern Ireland. This White Paper, I feel, has some promise in it and I am glad that we have noted its appearance and that some of us have given it at least a guarded welcome.

Question put and agreed to.

The Seanad adjourned at 7.45 p.m.sine die.